By Michael Lynch
Business leaders and airport officials across Northern Ontario are expressing dissatisfaction with the new air traveller's security charge that came into effect on April 1.
They are calling it a "cash grab" by the federal government and harmful to discount airlines and small- and medium- sized communities. Some changes have been made to the initially proposed security charge. Air passengers in remote northern areas are not subject to the charge as long as they do not make connecting flights through any of the country's 89 major airports.
Air travellers in Canada are paying $12 per one-way flight for security measures resulting from the 9/11 tragedy in the United States.
"When you look at how much the government is going to collect and how much they are going to spend on security measures, it looks like a cash grab," says Gary Dumanski, president of the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce.
Dumanski says the chamber has calculated the security cost at airports during 2002-03 at $223 million, yet the government will collect $430 million during the same period.
"This charge will hurt the economy of small- and medium-sized communities," Dumanski says.
Scott McFadden, president and CEO of Thunder Bay International Airport says the federal government has "sidestepped its own accountability principles" with the new charge.
"Although it may cost that much ($223 million per year), why should passengers flying in and out of Thunder Bay pay for air marshals on international routes?" McFadden questions. He estimates the government will collect $2.5 million per year from passengers moving through the Thunder Bay airport.
It was letters, telephone calls and a well-orchestrated campaign of political pressure on the ministers of finance, transport and Indian affairs that caused the federal government to change its mind on imposing the charge on air passengers travelling in remote northern communities.
Harvey Friesen, president of Bearskin Lake Air Service Ltd. wrote Finance Minister Paul Martin a letter, dated Dec. 18, 2001, that described the impact the new charge would have on passengers flying Bearskin routes.
Friesen told Martin that Bearskin Airlines currently operates in 38 communities, 20 of which are First Nations communities that have no road access and are serviced by small aircraft with nine to 14 seats. These communities are interdependent and several are only 20 to 40 miles apart with low fares ($27 return), he wrote.
"The $24 return security fee imposed on these tickets will amount to significant increases to airfares, some as high as 88 per cent," he stated in a letter.
Friesen warned Martin of the economic consequences of the charge.
"Mr. Minister, this security tax on the users of air service will have a negative impact on the industry as a whole. The customer is very price conscious and this unwarranted additional tax will result in a loss of business to an already struggling industry," Friesen stated.
WestJet Airlines, the rapidly expanding low-fare carrier that serves Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, launched a national advertising campaign in February to protest the flat-rate charge. The airline fully supports enhanced security measures for the airline industry and is not opposed to collecting a security fee.
"We are opposed, however, to a flat-rate charge," says Siobhan Vinish, WestJet's director of public relations and communications.
She says WestJet would like to see a security fee that is proportional to the airfare paid.
